Modern War and Centaurs: An Obsolete Race?

[Mr. Mask]

Something interesting came up in a discussion about centaurs. The idea that militarily, they would be rendered obsolete, and any great military traditions or culture they possessed may be dashed.

The reason for this thought can be summed up briefly as: APCs are faster than horses, every major army uses APCs for travelling any notable distance in modern war, the speed of a centaur has small use among infantry and cavalry aren't useful outside of specific operations. Also, horses can barely crawl, and have a much higher profile, making taking cover and moving between cover a lot harder. There are other possible issues, but these are the most pressing.

For advantages, centaurs are of course much faster and have better carrying capacity. That latter point means they might be able to wield heavy weapons more commonly and carry heavier mortars and the like into battle.


There are other smaller issues and benefits. Transportation of centaurs and food costs seem like they'd be higher, digging a foxhole for a horse is hard, and may be especially depending on how well their bodies adapt to digging. Centaurs are strong, can wear heavier armour, and it's hard to put down a horse--but they're also bigger targets, and plenty of modern weapons can put down a horse pretty easy, and armour only gets you so far. Fitting inside a human house might be hard, a serious problem for urban fighting in human areas.


I sort of feel that if you had military centaurs, they'd be concerned about becoming defunct, and would develop strategies and tactics to try and play to their strengths in some new way. The question is, does such a way exist, and what is it? Have any ideas?

[NRSASD]

In urban combat centaurs would face the same issues cavalry does: not enough room to maneuver. They can charge down a street, but they have no way of disengaging after that charge. Not mention the buildings are too small to fight in effectively, decent pieces of cover for centaurs are few and far in between, etc. Cities would be quite bad for centaurs.

A centaur on the modern battlefield would be at a huge advantage in hilly/mountainous guerrilla combat, in places like Afghanistan, Greece, or the Alps. They can pack much heavier weapons than the standard infantry, carry more supplies, access terrain that vehicles can't handle, and possibly even support themselves in the field through foraging (depends on the style of centaur).

They'd be scarily effective as mobile anti-air/anti-armor platforms, being able to turn up practically anywhere with more firepower than a human could manage. Likewise, with lots of loose rock and boulders, it becomes more practical for them to take cover in a fire fight than it would in a city or level terrain. Additionally, they could reposition their forces a lot faster than humans could, which strongly promotes the shoot and scoot style of fighting.

Would they outperform human troops in these conditions? Maybe. Despite it being easier for centaurs to hide in rocky hills than in cities, it's still hard for them to hide. Not to mention that any tunnel system large enough to accommodate a centaur would be easy to detect, so they would lack an easily defensible base to operate from. Ultimately, I think they'd give any modern attacking force a run for their money, but the centaurs would be unable to go on the offensive outside of their terrain. In a best case scenario, it would probably play out like the first Soviet assault during the Winter War of 1939.

[Eldan]

They could carry more supplies, but presumably, being much heavier, they'd also need more. Depending on whether their physiology was more horse or human, they'd also need a whole lot more water and have less endurance.

[Murk]

I think the main issue here is that you're putting centaur society/military in otherwise human environments.

Yes, centaurs probably wouldn't fare as well in human cities, because the streets are too cramped and the centaurs too big. They would fare perfectly in centaur cities, though. Humans, on the other hand, would have problems crossing the broad centaur streets quickly or finding cover in the open spaced centaur buildings.

In the same fashion, large centaur societies probably wouldn't evolve in ragged cliff country or dense forests. Large centaur militaries would protect (or invade) large open fields and low rolling hills. In here, having a slightly larger tank to sit in, or having to dig slightly larger fox holes doesn't matter that much: accuracy and being able to attack from larger distances are much more important.
Especially if the playing field is level - if centaurs have the same amount of technology as other races -, the technology should be able to compensate most biological disadvantages. For a catapult, it doesn't matter is the mechanic has four or two legs. An airplane can carry a horse just as well as a human.

It does raise an interesting question about warfare and size. In pre-technology fases, being big is good. The bigger you are, the harder you can smash. It does seem, however, as you stated, that once technology takes over, being small is preferable. Halfling tanks can hit just as hard as human tanks, but they are more maneouverable and harder to hit back.
That doesn't bode well for centaurs, but I think that as technology advances, their biological disadvantages should decrease in importance.

[Ettina]

Nothing's stopping a centaur from designed a tank shaped for a centaur driver.

[Murk]

Nothing's stopping a centaur from designed a tank shaped for a centaur driver.

Those tanks will be bigger than tanks designed for humans, which has its disadvantages.
Which makes me conclude that halflings will rule tech-advanced worlds.

[goto124]

Tinker gnomes.

[TurboGhast]

Those tanks will be bigger than tanks designed for humans, which has its disadvantages.
Which makes me conclude that halflings will rule tech-advanced worlds.

Tinker gnomes.

It makes perfect sense that Tinker Gnomes would rule the world upon getting modern tech because they already have steampunk!

[Segev]

It's an interesting question you've openned up, here: how WOULD cities where centaurs were a large plurality look? How would cities built and run by centaurs differ from mixed-race (say just human and centaur for now) cities?

How do horses do on stairs, for example? And, if they have difficulty, how much of it is due to being animal-intelligence (such that a centaur's human-esq mind could overcome it)? Would ramps be the alternative? Aside from the larger space requirements making things more expensive, would any of the centaur-centric architectural choices be as inconvenient for humans as the human-centric ones could make things for centaurs?

Horses can lie down. They don't really "sit" all that well. How would, say, a classroom full of centaurs look? All standing-room, or would they have some sort of furniture for resting on? What would their beds, if any, look like? Their bathrooms? The problem with horses in real life when it comes to their excretions is that they have no self-control; presumably the intelligent centaurs could and would.

WOULD centaurs have clothing for their horse-halves? Would they share human senses of propriety regarding their sex and excretion organs? What would such clothes look like? Can they even meaningfully clothe their hindquarters, given human reach and centaur scale? (Can they clean themselves? There's no part of the human body, save perhaps the center of our backs, that we cannot contort to reach with at least one hand; is the same true of centaurs? I doubt it...)

What WOULD vehicles designed for centaur use look like? Vehicles designed to transport horses would not be considred acceptable by an intelligent species that is peer to humans. Plus, centaurs doubtless would want to be able to drive themselves about, too. It'd be interesting to watch the technical development: horses would be a human's personal choice for carriage-pulling, except when they either don't own a horse (in which case a hired/rented centaur driver is cheaper because he's both driver and steed) or they CAN afford a manservant driver (who is a centaur). As cars developed, centaurs would likely be LATE adopters, if only because they can pull their own wagons around easily using the existing-for-horses harnesses.

But at the same time, would it be a strictly human invention? Even if it were, would it be strictly designed for humans, or with the awareness that centaurs might want it, too...even if just as a novelty? Would the concept of pedals be used for the equine feet of a centaur, or would something else be the preferred means of controlling a car's speeds and gears? Designing the cab of a car for a centaur is a strange prospect.

And would, even pre-car, there be carriages for centaurs to travel "in style" within? I mean, nothing prevents humans from walking from place to place, but carriages were a thing. As were litters/palanquins. Some equivalent may have long since evolved for Centaurs.

A fair number of these questions ca nbe answered in part by determining what a centaur's "sitting" equivalent is. Yes, horses can theoretically mimic the dog-sit position, but is that really going to serve the same purpose? Humans sit to take weight off their feet while keeping upright and ready to move and engage with the world. Centaurs...probably can't lie prone, really. Maybe they'd lay down, horse-style, then lay their torsos forward onto a half-bed sort of thing? Would that be restful for their whole body? Would just cushions on which to fold their legs beneath them work?

Somebody with more experience with horses might have answers.

[Eisenheim]

Centaurs are at a disadvantage from the true death of cavalry through the second world war and Korean War technology levels, and would presumably mostly serve in logistical roles during such conflicts, in a mixed military.

Once large scale helicopter deployment become feasible, centaurs will excel as a rapid-reaction force, able to usefully deploy from a safer landing zone farther from the enemy and quickly arrive with significantly more heavy weapons and ammunition than an equivalent human force could transport. Thus, in the truly modern military, centaurs serve in two primary roles: artillery and special forces, both roles which make maximum use of their physiological advantages.

[Mr. Mask]

With the helicopters, apparently helicopter insertions can get within a few hundred yards of the enemy. Which puts a bit of a damper on centaur advantages.

[Maglubiyet]

Why only centaurs? The arguments you make would apply equally to ogres, cyclops, minotaurs, etc. (Also remember, APC's are faster than humans too!...)

That being said, centaurs might do very well in rugged terrain where their opponents' vehicles can't travel or maneuver well. Mountainous regions where APC's and tanks would be restricted to a narrow valley, heavily-forested areas with old-growth trees, desert canyons, swamps, marshlands, and bogs. They could strike from the flanks with heavy weapons then flee faster than humans could pursue on foot.

[The Evil DM]

I am of the opinion that many of the arguments made for the advantages and disadvantages in various conditions is part of the argument behind the trope that has the various faerie and fantastic species moving away from agricultural civilization into the rugged terrain and dense forests.

If survival would indicate that these species go where they have an advantage, when civilization presses against them they move away from civilization.

[Cealocanth]

I could imagine centaurs would be incredibly useful in pre-WWI warfare, but I'm not going to nitpick on your definition of 'modern'.

So the question is whether or not an armed horse is any useful in modern guerilla-style warfare. The disadvantages would be that they are huge and difficult to hide, require more food, are less dexterous on mountainous terrain, and are easier to hit. There are some advantages to having centaurs in modern warfare, though. Centaurs are faster than humans at a sprint and can be mounted by humans for maximum efficiency, making short-distance movement faster. Centaurs are renowned for their marksmanship, and assuming that carries over to assault rifles and machine guns, centaurs would be much deadlier on the battlefield than humans in general. Centaurs can carry heavier weapons and more ammunition, meaning that some weapons that aren't usually quickly mobile (such as a minigun) become much more practical for on the field use. Centaurs are also more intimidating and generally stronger, which makes them good for crowd suppression.

Now that I think about it, while centaurs would be a lousy choice for most actual engagements, they would make fantastic peacekeepers. A large centaur, armored in that which keeps him protected yet mobile (such as kevlar), wielding a suppressive fire weapon, would probably be the one to send in in the event of a riot or other crowd-suppression type operation.

[Eisenheim]

With the helicopters, apparently helicopter insertions can get within a few hundred yards of the enemy. Which puts a bit of a damper on centaur advantages.

It really depends on the situation. Sometimes you really would prefer to keep your helicopters farther from the enemy. Ever seen Blackhawk Down?

[Mr. Mask]

The helicopter insertion wasn't so much the issue. It went pretty well. It was the extraction via land route that failed miserably.

[Maglubiyet]

The helicopter insertion wasn't so much the issue. It went pretty well. It was the extraction via land route that failed miserably.

In that particular situation centaurs would've probably done better than the Rangers. Roadblocks wouldn't have stopped them, the sound of their convoy wouldn't have given away their position, they could've carried a heck of a lot more ammo and firepower, and they could've outpaced all of their foot pursuers.

I'm just having a hard time picturing those little human arms holding up a horse body while fast-roping.

[cobaltstarfire]

Couldn't some of the problems of size be fixed by giving centaurs as much size variance as there is in real life equines?

Need smaller bodies for various modern war things? The centaur armed forces would likely see a shift in focus towards the pony sized demographic.


Though I'm not sure centaurs would be "good" with trench warfare, even if they could easily dig out big enough trenches for themselves. Trench warfare was really awful on humans, but the super damp/muddy/unsanitary conditions of it would be far worse for the horse part of a centaur, as it'd turn their hooves into infection ridden moosh.

[Milo v3]

One weakness centaurs would have is that they'd need a human around to get most of their advantages, since it'd be difficult to pick things up or reach anything that's in their packs. Being able to carry more doesn't help if they can't actually reach for the stuff they carry.

[Mr. Mask]

I figure a centaur would need a greater range of movement around the human waist, so that they could tun around and lean around their horse half. It might look pretty weird to humans, like a contortionist.


Cobalt: They could probably take similar measures to other soldiers in WW1. Wear boots and leggings, and clean your feet regularly.


Anyone know how quickly a horse can crawl?

[Leon]

Why only centaurs? The arguments you make would apply equally to ogres, cyclops, minotaurs, etc. (Also remember, APC's are faster than humans too!...)

I would say as they have the distinction of being on Four legs instead of Two

One weakness centaurs would have is that they'd need a human around to get most of their advantages, since it'd be difficult to pick things up or reach anything that's in their packs. Being able to carry more doesn't help if they can't actually reach for the stuff they carry.

Why a Human and not an allied Centaur and have stuff not on the ground for access (although they can lie down and such)

[cobaltstarfire]

Now I'm imagining centaurs with a "waist" area with special bones similar to a birds neck or something to allow more twisting ability.

Though I don't think they need a super huge amount of flexibility just to be able to reach their backs and things, they can reach their human backs, and it's not hard to imagine them able to turn the human part of their bodies to reach some of their horse backs. I imagine that centaurs would be a very social species so they can help each other out with more sophisticated needs.

Picking up fallen objects would be a little more time consuming than for a humanoid, it doesn't strike me as something impossible or even especially difficult for a healthy centaur to do.

Cobalt: They could probably take similar measures to other soldiers in WW1. Wear boots and leggings, and clean your feet regularly.

Yes that's a given, but it didn't make the issues associated with all the muck and wet just go away. Upkeep of a horses hooves is not an easy thing, if it was difficult for humans to deal with, it's going to be much worse for centaurs.


It's a good question on how fast can horses crawl, I don't think very fast. But when I think of a horse crawling I think of a very sick animal, so maybe a healthy horse-like being purposely crawling could go a bit faster.

[5ColouredWalker]

Centaurs are given human size arms mostly due to scale, specifically making them not look as monstrous. Longer arms [with perhaps an additional joint.] would solve a number of problems.

Also, Centaurs are always represented as a smaller subset of the sentient population than Humans [and their equivalents.], given how Humans treat each other they'd likely only survive until modern times by becoming extremely isolationist, living where no one else wants to [Antarctica?], or becoming a subservient race to humans.
In the case of becoming subservient, centaurs are rarely shown as mounts, but can be mounted. A mixed group with 1-3 humans and 5-10 centaurs would keep all the bonuses of being centaurs while having humans to assist wher scale can become a problem.
However given how Centaurs are supposed to be proud and Humans have treated our own population subsets by phenotype, I don't see Centaurs becoming subservient to humans.


Ok, let's say they go isolationist... Look at modern isolationist tribes such as those in the Amazon, do they look like they'd do well in a modern war?

[Mr. Mask]

At the very least, centaurs have twice the foot-care concerns.

Crawling is a trick sometimes taught to horses, but I'm not sure how fast they can go or how quickly it tires them.


Maglu, Leon: The main difference is the difficulty crawling. Ogres would have similar issues with being a large target even when crawling, so they might have the same issues.

[5ColouredWalker]

Maglu, Leon: The main difference is the difficulty crawling. Ogres would have similar issues with being a large target even when crawling, so they might have the same issues.

Yet, they suffer less problems due to not being 'Large Long', and them being of humanoid shape allows them to use many human technologies just by scaling them up, which you can't do with Centaurs.

[NRSASD]

One thing that I was thinking about is how would size affect weapon development in the modern era. For example, anti-tank rifles became obsolete near the end of WW1 as it became impractical to build a rifle capable of firing a large enough bullet to damage a tank without maiming its user in the process. Centaurs, on the other hand, would probably be able to keep that line of weapons around longer due to their more robust physiques. If centaur civilization was as large and as numerous as humans and had a comparable tech level, I suspect modern ballistic armor would have a hard time resisting shots from Centaur weapons due to the higher velocity and/or caliber that they'd be using. I guess what I'm saying is that Centaurs wouldn't necessarily be packing around human machine guns, but more likely giant-sized version assault rifles.

Likewise, halflings would have a hard time operating firearms that pack a similar punch to human weapons, due to their smaller size. Halflings probably wouldn't be the be-all-end-all infantry in a modern setting, though their smaller yet just as deadly vehicles would probably beat human equivalents in an even fight.

While its true that proper cavalry have a rough time charging or maneuvering in mountainous terrain, a horse or mule can walk on trails pretty much anywhere. Look at how the Afghan forces resupplied when fighting the Russians during the 1979-1989 conflict. They used mule trains to move supplies to positions that land vehicles couldn't reach and helicopters couldn't access without taking fire. With centaurs, they'd be the soldiers and the pack train all in one.

I really do like the idea of Centaur riot police though. No one wants to mess with someone holding a shield the size of your front door who can punch and kick you with both feet while holding the line.

[5ColouredWalker]

I'd like to point out something rather important.
The human part of the centaur body almost certainly has human level strength.

Sure, you could get around squad level weapons by having them brace against the horse portion, but aiming them will be a bitch. But for regular riffles? They just pack a boat load more ammo than a regular person could. In modern warfare supposedly 100s of rounds are spent per hit/kill, with that mostly being suppression where you get into position to actually kill. Imagine a race where that was just using a large amount of ammo [Say, 1/5th of what you're carrying], instead of wasting all the ammo you have to kill one guy, so now you get to sit there with an empty riffle.

[Murk]

I'd like to point out something rather important.
The human part of the centaur body almost certainly has human level strength.

Sure, you could get around squad level weapons by having them brace against the horse portion, but aiming them will be a bitch.

That's because weapons as we know it are made for humans: we brace them against/on our shoulders, our arms or sometimes our hips, because those are the most stable body parts we have. Centaurs have other, more stable parts (probably in their horse parts), so their weapons would look differently.

Supporting a rifle with their horse parts would mean those weapons couldn't fire straight ahead (because there's a human torso in the way). However, there's already som discussion going on about the flexibility of the human torso. I'm thinking they could bear huge weapons which they would fire sideways: flex their human torso's 90 degrees and aim perendicular to their horse bodies rather than in its extent.

[Mr. Mask]

Broadsides with horses is a pretty interesting idea. I'm not sure if their balance and bracing is made for sudden jolts from the side, though. Personally, I figure you'd be better to rig a harness around the horse body that the gun is braced in, then fiddle with the gun directly or via some extension of the trigger. Aiming may still be difficult.

Another possibility is to turn the human body around 180 degrees, then use a gun braced on the centaur's own back like a turret.

[Flickerdart]

Centaurs are renowned for their marksmanship, and assuming that carries over to assault rifles and machine guns, centaurs would be much deadlier on the battlefield than humans in general.

Damn, that's a good point - a centaur sniper would be able to absorb the impact from progressively heavier anti-materiel rifles than their human counterparts, allowing them to carry ridiculously accurate and deadly weaponry. Centaur special forces would be able to quickly close to range, deliver pinpoint fire, and then turn around and run away at a pace that the enemy won't be able to match unless they scramble vehicles in time. Having a higher profile than a prone human isn't terribly useful when you're three km away.

And physical dimensions stop mattering once everyone is fielding drones, anyway.